And regardless of what you made of Emerald Fennell’s controversial take on Wuthering Heights, the news that another Brontë sister classic is coming to our screens is surely an exciting one.According to reports, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre is being adapted for TV, with Aimee Lou Wood set to star in the title role. And as someone who loved her warm and witty performance in Film Club (which was also her writing debut), I couldn’t be more thrilled. We know from her previous characters that she can be both bold and demanding, while still tender and gentle. Whether she’s portraying an outspoken schoolgirl in Sex Education or a free-spirited hotel guest in The White Lotus, she’s able to bring so much expression and intensity to her roles that she feels more than well-equipped to play such a steely heroine. [...]Regardless, I can’t wait to see Wood shine in such a classic role, one I have no doubt she’ll really make her own. (Amy Beecham)
A few days after Emerald Fennell’s film adaptation of “Wuthering Heights” came out, a friend sent me an Onion headline about a bookseller frantically pulling classics off the shelf before Fennell enters the store. No beloved novel could be safe from the dangers of the director introducing anachronistic costumes, original songs by Charli XCX, selectively color-blind casting, and explicit B.D.S.M. scenes for its Byronic hero.In the case of “Wuthering Heights,” though, there was no further need to worry. The books had already flown off the shelves. In mid-February, Publishers Weekly reported that a hundred thousand copies of Emily Brontë’s 1847 novel had sold in the first two months of this year, compared with a hundred and eighty thousand total last year, attributing the increase to book clubs and influencers of all stripes embracing it. People I spoke to who’d never read it before confessed their omission as a sin tantamount to not yet having watched “Heated Rivalry.” My own confession was that I’d never much liked “Wuthering Heights.” The nihilistic attachment between its doomed lovers, Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff, was too stormy and unruly for my tastes. But in rereading it for my own Substack book club, in advance of the release of Fennell’s film, I came to respect both its discipline and its perversity, though not in the way Fennell’s movie might make you think.In a certain light, “Wuthering Heights” is a respectable, conservative tale. (Hear me out.) At the beginning of the novel, we meet the cantankerous middle-aged Heathcliff and his two wards, Hareton Earnshaw and Catherine Heathcliff. The relationships eventually become clear: Hareton is the son of Hindley Earnshaw, Heathcliff’s chief childhood tormentor (and the original Cathy Earnshaw’s brother); Catherine is Cathy’s daughter and the young widow of Heathcliff’s son. The novel closes with the news that Hareton and Catherine will marry, united by a bond of true affection. Thus, the Earnshaw line survives and thrives, and the social order remains much the same at the end as it ever was.But, to get there, Brontë enlists some of the ubiquitous tropes of her time—the foundling hero, for example—only to ruthlessly unravel them. The orphan is a Chekhov’s gun of Victorian fiction: if there’s an unattached child, expect an eventual reunion with a long-lost relative, or a sudden serendipitous inheritance that enfolds the orphan into a family line. Both of those things happen in “Jane Eyre,” also published in 1847, by Emily’s sister Charlotte Brontë. Jane stumbles upon three kind people who turn out to be her cousins, and into a fortuitous bequest of twenty thousand pounds from their shared late uncle. Emily Brontë resists such a dénouement for Heathcliff. He is introduced when Mr. Earnshaw, Cathy’s father, deposits him unceremoniously in front of his wife and his two children at Wuthering Heights, having picked the boy up off the streets of Liverpool and bundled him into his coat: “a gift of God; though it’s as dark almost as if it came from the devil.” (“It,” to be clear, refers to Heathcliff.) His origins are unknown, and they stay that way. There’s no explanation for his heritage, no clarity as to the nature of his darkness. As a young adult, he disappears after Cathy declares her intention to marry Edgar Linton, the son of their wealthy neighbors at Thrushcross Grange. Heathcliff comes back three years later a gentleman, in affect and appearance if not at heart. But that time away and the source of his changed fortune also remain a mystery.There’s no ending for Heathcliff that reconciles him to the cruelty shown to him by Hindley Earnshaw, who hates him from the moment that his father brings him home. (Some fault lies with Mr. Earnshaw, who had favored Heathcliff when the children were growing up but failed to legitimatize him within the family.) There’s no one left in the novel’s closing chapters to apologize to Heathcliff for the abuse that he suffered—Mr. Earnshaw, Hindley, Cathy, and Edgar are all dead—nor does he apologize to those he brutalizes in turn: his wife Isabella, whom he marries to spite her brother, Edgar, and their poor, fretful son, Linton, whom he simply abhors on principle. There’s no language for him to fully acknowledge or profit from the genuine love that his ward, Hindley’s son, Hareton, feels for him. The happiest state Heathcliff can achieve is being haunted by the ghost of Cathy, and when, at the end of the novel, he recognizes her trademark Earnshaw eyes in the two young people of his household (not surprisingly, given that they are her daughter and her nephew), the best he can do is send them out of the room, as they cause him “pain, amounting to agony.”If Victorian fiction ordinarily treats the orphan as an engine of social mobility, whose path involves finding his place in the world, “Wuthering Heights” asserts that any such progress is temporary. At the end, Heathcliff stands alone and “unredeemed,” as Charlotte Brontë wrote of him in 1850. He destroys all his relationships, such that he can’t think of how to write his will and bequeath all the property he’s spent his life vengefully acquiring. Emily Brontë, instead, writes him out of it altogether. He has nothing to show for all of his actions. His sole biological heir predeceases him, and, once he has gone, the two homes in question, Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange, will pass to Hareton and young Catherine, who continue the Earnshaw family lineage. By the standards of the Victorian novel, Heathcliff, who leaves neither descendants nor legacy behind him, is a dead end.In this way, Brontë demonstrates that not all trauma has a resolution, that belonging is a gift that not even the most powerful of novelists can readily bestow. She does not tame, contain, or tidy Heathcliff’s wild energy. It shapes his outlook even in death. When Nelly, the Earnshaw family’s longtime servant, finds his body, his eyes are wide open, with a stare both “keen and fierce.” She says, “I tried to close his eyes: to extinguish, if possible, that frightful, life-like gaze of exultation, before any one else beheld it. They would not shut.” His tombstone reminds us one last time of how little we know him. “As he had no surname, and we could not tell his age,” Nelly says, “we were obliged to content ourselves with the single word, ‘Heathcliff.’ ”Whenever a fuss arises over the adaptation of a literary text to screen, I think of what James M. Cain told an interviewer for The Paris Review who asked him what he thought of the film that Billy Wilder and Raymond Chandler made of his novel “Double Indemnity.” Their version made significant changes to the plot. Cain replied that he didn’t like movies. “I don’t go,” he said. “People tell me, don’t you care what they’ve done to your book? I tell them, they haven’t done anything to my book. It’s right there on the shelf.”“Double Indemnity” ’s plot was reworked, in part, to sanitize the story for screen audiences. The Hays Code, a precursor to the motion-picture rating system that gave Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” an R for its depictions of violence, sex, and death, required that Hollywood movies eschew profanity, obscenity, and other indicators of low morals, and also stipulated that “the sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil, or sin.” Among other potential issues, in Cain’s ending, the lovers who commit the insurance fraud at the center of the story escape the country, with plans for a double suicide. The film closes, instead, with a confession scene.It’s hard these days to imagine a situation in which, through a self-imposed agreement among all the major studios, movies and television series would need to be tamer than their source material specifically so as not to corrupt the audience. If anything, in our visual culture, we tend to expect—indeed, anticipate—the opposite. But the impulse behind the Hays Code aligns with a truism of nineteenth-century fiction that its successful writers well knew: that characters who transgress within the pages of a novel could not be allowed to prosper without punishment. It doesn’t take a literary scholar to notice, for example, that adulterous women in nineteenth-century novels—English, French, Russian—meet tragic ends, no matter how sympathetically or charismatically their creators portray them. Even the men must square their accounts. In “Jane Eyre,” Mr. Rochester, Jane’s employer at Thornfield Hall, where she goes to work as a governess, fails in his initial attempt to marry her when the existence of his first wife, Bertha, locked up in the attic, is revealed. He gets Jane in the end, but only after being maimed and partially blinded in a fire set by Bertha, in which she perishes. It’s not exactly an eye for an eye, but it reflects the belief that actions have moral consequences.“Wuthering Heights” abides by that convention. Heathcliff and Cathy both must suffer and die, lest readers make the mistake of believing it’s acceptable to profess undying love for your childhood companion while you’re seven months pregnant and married to another man (as Cathy does) or to try to kill your wife’s dog (as Heathcliff does), to name but two of their many offenses. The placid romance of Hareton and young Catherine leaves us, superficially, in a peaceful, even hopeful place.But it is Heathcliff’s passionate declarations and shocking acts that stay in the mind and color our lasting impression of “Wuthering Heights” as strange and uncontainable. They will outlive the blood-red, entertaining raunch of Fennell’s movie, too, in spite of the recency bias that kicks in when we’re confronted with contemporary interpretations of classics. It’s humbling to admit that an isolated nineteenth-century Yorkshirewoman, of whom her sister wrote that “she had scarcely more practical knowledge of the peasantry amongst whom she lived, than a nun has of the country people who sometimes pass her convent gates,” could possibly harbor thoughts as wild or knowing or kinky as we do now. But Brontë’s novel easily checks the first and third of those R-rated boxes. (As for the second, we can make our own assumptions.)In Fennell’s previous film, “Saltburn,” she cemented her reputation as a provocateur with a sequence in which the main character strips down and humps his former friend’s grave. I see that scene and counter it with this one from Brontë: seventeen years after Cathy’s death, as her husband, Edgar, is being laid to rest beside her, Heathcliff persuades the sexton to open up Cathy’s grave, ascertains that she has not yet begun to decompose (“I saw her face again—it is hers yet . . . but he said it would change, if the air blew on it”), and then bribes the sexton to remove a side from each of their coffins once he is buried there, too, so that they can commingle for eternity. It’s a deliciously subversive image, and diabolically timeless. (Radhika Jones)
When Emily Brontë published “Wuthering Heights,” in 1847, critics were baffled, alarmed, and mostly unimpressed. James Lorimer, writing in the North British Review, promised that the novel would “never be generally read.” Nearly two centuries later, it’s regarded as one of the great works of English literature. In a live taping of Critics at Large at the 92nd Street Y, Vinson Cunningham, Naomi Fry, and Alexandra Schwartz discuss the staying power of the original text and the countless adaptations it’s inspired, from the 1939 film featuring Laurence Olivier to Andrea Arnold’s 2011 version. The most recent attempt comes from the director Emerald Fennell, whose new “Wuthering Heights,” starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, reads as a romantic fever dream. The movie has been polarizing in part for the way it excises some of the weirder and wilder aspects of its source material. But what’s discarded—or emphasized—can also be revealing. “It’s an audacious proposition to adapt a great novel . . . I don’t think it needs to be faithful, necessarily,” Fry says. “The adaptation itself becomes a portrait of the time in which it’s made.”
A fresh wave of "Brontëmania" has swept through the historic home of the literary sisters, following the release of a new film adaptation of Wuthering Heights.The Brontë Parsonage Museum in Haworth, West Yorkshire, a global hub for enthusiasts, reports a "mind-blowing" response to Emerald Fennell’s take on Emily Brontë's classic. [...]Mia Ferullo, the museum’s digital engagement officer, said that this surge is the most recent in a long line of renewed fascinations with the lives and works of Charlotte, Emily, and Anne Brontë.With discussions now circulating about an international television adaptation of Jane Eyre, starring Aimee Lou Wood, Ms Ferullo sees no sign of the literary fervour abating.“I’ve never seen so many people talk about Emily Brontë and Wuthering Heights,” she said.“It’s been quite mind-blowing – really, very surreal.“We talk about the Brontës every day and everyone else is kind of joining in on this conversation, and it is everywhere.“So many people are picking up the book for the first time and discovering the Brontës for the first time.“It does feel like a very big, special, special moment.”Ms Ferullo has been giving talks over the last two weeks at the museum on Brontëmania, the literary pilgrimages to the sisters’ home in Haworth which began in the late 19th century – even when the sisters’ father, the Reverend Patrick Bronte, who outlived them, was still living in the building.he said: “People from as far as America were coming to Haworth to try and see the place where Charlotte Brontë wrote Jane Eyre and lived.“So it kind of started really early on, before the museum was actually at the parsonage.”She said: “Even when Patrick was still living there, people would come, and he would take out Charlotte’s signature from letters and stuff to give to people as souvenirs.“People would go into the church to look at the marriage register book where Charlotte had written in.“So, there was a lot of interest.“And, I think that’s partly why the church decided to sell the parsonage, because people were getting bothered too much by by tourists.”Fellow literary great Virginia Woolf visited the house in 1904 and remarked on how understanding where the books were written added to readers’ appreciation of the works.Ms Ferullo said the influx of new visitors is partly down to the long-standing phenomenon of people wanting to see where literary and movie works are created.Few writers are as rooted to a specific place as the Brontës are with Haworth and its surrounding moors, she said.“People come to the house because they want to learn about the Brontës’ lives but, actually, it’s the moors surrounding them that make people feel as if they’re stepping into the novels themselves.“I don’t think they would have written things like Wuthering Heights without living in this area.”Ms Ferullo said: “With the film, it’s obviously prompted a lot of people to buy the book, and we’ve sold a lot of copies of Wuthering Heights in the shop.“But I think, as well, people want to feel like they’re getting a bit closer.“And, it’s more of an authentic experience of visiting the actual place where everything started, where this novel was written.”She said: “There’s definitely a lot of people who love the books, and that is what’s motivated them to visit.“A lot of people read them when they’re teenagers, and kind of grow up with them.“But we do have people who are just visiting Haworth for a day out, and the museum’s here, and they visit and, hopefully, learn more.”She said: “What we quite like is that it starts the conversation, allows us to talk to people and then, hopefully, they’ll learn more.“It’s kind of like an entry point into the Brontës.” (Dave Higgens)
I am sure you have heard the discourse surrounding Emerald Fennell’s now infamous, “Wuthering Heights”: ‘As a fan of the novel I could never enjoy this film,’ ‘This film is a disgrace to Emily Brontë,’ and so on. Dr Claire O’Callaghan, literary scholar and Senior Lecturer in English at Loughborough University, is one of the most qualified people to address these concerns. Claire specialises in the Brontës, being Editor-In-Chief of the official journal of the Brontë Society and even publishing an extensive biography of Emily Brontë herself, Emily Brontë Reappraised. It is safe to say that Dr O’Callaghan is far more than simply a fan of the novel, she is an expert, and here is what she had to say.Upon viewing the film immediately on the Friday morning of its release, Dr O’Callaghan detailed her initial reaction, ‘I just couldn’t stop laughing’, stating that her overall opinion of the film was that it was extremely entertaining and refreshing in comparison to the myriads of bad adaptations of the novel that exist. Talking of the film’s striking opening sequence, O’Callaghan stated that ‘it was just so tongue in cheek, setting the tone for the whole film’ being a ‘visual feast for the eyes’ that she was still processing when I came to speak to her the following Wednesday after the films release.One of the most divisive elements surrounding Fennell’s adaptation is the issue of casting. Dr O’Callaghan stated, ‘I have read and written about a million spin offs of ‘Wuthering Heights’, I don’t take them in this very pure way that people seem to, particularly with the Brontës…people get very protective over it and their Cathy and Heathcliff is the only Cathy and Heathcliff…I went in with a really open mind.’ Despite this open mindedness, on the issues of race surrounding the casting of Heathcliff, Claire stated that she can definitely see why people are upset, ‘In the book he is described by and large ambiguously but as a person of colour, that is what the commonality is between the descriptions of him.’ Claire suggested that the public reaction to the casting of Heathcliff is reflective of the time in which we are living and she agrees that there have not been enough diverse representations of Heathcliff on screen.On the widely shared viewpoint that Fennell’s film disgraces Emily Brontë herself, Claire stated that she believes that making that comment in and of itself is slightly disrespectful taking Emily’s name in vain due to one’s own dislike of a film adaptation. O’Callaghan, also being a scholar of the Victorians more broadly, suggested that one of the reasons for people’s strong reactions towards the adaptation is people’s views of the Victorian era as strictly puritan even though elements like what is included in Fennell’s adaptation were encoded within the original work.On the more provocative elements of the film, Claire stated that the fish scene was the only thing that made her feel sick, all the rest between Cathy and Heathcliff got repetitive, however getting to listen to the Charlie XCX soundtrack overlayed in the background made it all worth it. To conclude on her opinions surrounding the strong reactions to this adaptation, Claire stated, ‘It’s a kind of echo…of how horrified the Victorians were about this book…there’s a complete correlation between what we are seeing now and what we were seeing then and that’s what is fascinating.’Another topic that fans of the novel have been divided by is the representation and different interpretation of such beloved characters. Claire remarked on Isabella’s characterisation, ‘Isabella was interesting…I have got some research that’s not published…on representations of Isabella on screen…she has always been presented as this naïve character…Fennell does this…’ however she also stated that she ‘kind of liked the fact that Fennell gave agency to Isabella…it was really different…I was left a bit like, I’m not sure what to think here’. On the character of Cathy, Claire approved of Margot Robbie’s performance stating that ‘she really brought out the kind of brat like Cathy.’ The main issue that O’Callaghan shared surrounding the film was to do with the characterisation of Heathcliff, ‘The only thing I didn’t like about this film is that we are told in the book that Heathcliff is a man who will love and hate in equal measure, his emotional engine is grief, misery and sorrow but I felt that in the film he was a bit more of a romantic…that’s less interesting than something a bit more emotionally complex’. Claire also stated that so many adaptations cut off the second part of the book as well as moving around and condensing characters, ‘I think it’s really hard to adapt a complex, layered book like ‘Wuthering Heights’, it moves about in time… it’s hard to do that.’ She went on to suggest that ‘Wuthering Heights’ is full of ‘competing plotlines and ambiguity … with screen, adaptation can’t deal with ambiguity, it has to disambiguate,’ this being the reason for many of Fennell’s choices to condense elements of the novel.Overall, Dr Claire O’Callaghan shared a viewpoint that I myself am inclined to agree with, ‘If you’re going to do an adaptation…you can’t just keep doing the same thing…this is hopefully opening up a whole new world of readers to that book…take it with a pinch of salt and just enjoy the madness for a couple of hours.’ (Malise Johnson)
UNG Gainesville English Professor Shannon Gilstrap has read “Wuthering Heights” countless times and plans to see the movie at some point. He finds that modernization isn’t necessarily a negative thing, “a long as the strength of the story remains in the characters and not in how ‘hip’ the movie can be.” [...]As a reader, Gilstrap says, “It’s a story of emotional manipulation, emotional and physical abuse, abduction, forced marriages, child abuse, stealing, greed, revenge, the persistence of emotional memory. And, of course, one realizes that the “love story” story between Catherine and Heathcliff…Brontë forces us to think – Good lord, what did we – and these characters – have to go through to get it?” That is translated quite well into the film, and Fennell did a great job translating those feelings and themes onto screen. The audience leaves the theater concerned and saddened about what these characters endured in the time span of 2 hours, 16 min.Go check out the film “Wuthering Heights” and read the book to compare and contrast the difference between Brontë’s written words and Fennell’s adaptation. Decide among yourselves if the modernization was taken too far or if it adds depth to the story. (Amelia Anderson)
But Emily has had historical payback after those disapproving reviews. “Wuthering Heights” stays reliably in print, thanks to people like me, who teach it, and thanks to the film makers, who periodically boost it lucratively into the headlines.The new film beckons. But I hope that moviegoers will turn again to the book: a real Gothic shocker, which entertains while inviting us to ponder the dangerous and wonderful strength of human feeling, to consider the possibility that individual human identity is permeable, and that we may really be able to live in each other’s hearts and minds – perhaps forever. (Rosemary Haskell)
As a great and eternal admirer of the Brontë sisters, with the novel “Wuthering Heights” in my heart, I went to the cinema to watch the 2026 film “Wuthering Heights” expecting nothing other than “an Emerald Fennell”: a film by the director of “Promising Young Woman” and “Saltburn,” a mad, transgressive, decidedly pop film. I entered the theater expecting crazy costumes and a more exciting-than-ever Jacob Elordi. I entered the theater expecting a very sad love story, but also slightly ironic and mischievous. I entered the theater expecting to laugh and mock and not think for a couple of hours. The result is that I left the theater satisfied to have rediscovered the characters of one of my adolescent novels, to have visualized them more beautiful than I had imagined them, to have amusingly confirmed my belief that Jacob Elordi is as tall as he is, let’s say, still learning; I left the theater with beautiful shots and set designs in my eyes and in my head several thoughts about the general difficulty of living love fully. I left that cinema having seen a film that entertained me, without killing a single neuron.A film, in short, a “phenomenon” in the best sense of the word: saturated colors, iconic costumes, quotable, parodyable, and ultimately shareable by women and men who can equally ask themselves: “I wonder if they will manage to love each other (I wonder if we will manage to love each other?).” (Maria Luisa Fasano)
Nonetheless, one thing is uncontestedly certain — Fennell’s version will be the one solidified in history as the adaptation with its own original Charli XCX original soundtrack. (Tessa Kang)
Overall, this movie is well worth watching. Local Wimbledon resident Ada Onur comments that: "This movie skilfully conveyed the ambiguous darkness of Emily Bronte's 'Wuthering Heights' through a new and modern angle, making it fast-paced and gripping. Despite the unexpected nature of certain scenes, I enjoyed the movie immensely!" (Marisa Shand)
Don’t get me wrong, Fennell’s cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking. But an abundance of style can only compensate so much for what is an utter dearth of substance.Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” uses the guise of interpretation as an excuse to circumvent grappling with the actual issues of what is otherwise one of the most emotionally fraught and bleak stories ever written. Vaguely referencing a couple of plot points and throwing in some direct quotes isn’t enough to capture the colliding forces of class, race, gender, recurrence, civilization and nature at the core of the novel.The only thing tragic about this story is that it takes 136 minutes to realize there isn’t one. (Isabella Garcia)
“Wuthering Heights” is neither a good adaptation nor a good film. It is a confusing, erratic and gratuitously sex-filled disaster that does no justice to Brontë’s masterpiece. However, if you want a dumb movie to watch with friends, Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” just might be for you. (Augusta Cooper)
The aesthetics and visual symbolism become increasingly absurd as the film progresses — in one scene, comically high stacks of empty green liquor bottles indicate the depths of Mr. Earnshaw’s alcoholism. Choices like these emphasize the importance of hedonism and over-indulgence in Fennell’s characters. I’ve seen criticism that her characters, especially Heathcliff and Catherine, are lacking in depth, and while I think this is fair, I worry it misses the rather blunt thesis Fennell presents about humanity as a whole: every person is essentially amoral and even cruel in the pursuit of pleasure. To this end, her characters do not require individuality or even unique motivations, since it is taken for granted that they are all driven by the universal primal instincts.This is one of the reasons I struggle to take the film’s romance seriously, and I almost wonder whether, through no intention of the director's, it could subvert the romance genre entirely. Catherine and Heathcliff’s relationship perfectly demonstrates the kind of emotionally hollow but sexually driven and possessive ‘romance’ that is so archetypal at the moment. In this way, the film seems to agree more with the work of the more moralistic Brontë sister, Charlotte (I say that as someone who prefers “Jane Eyre”) than the nuanced character examinations of Emily’s novel.There are, however, two scenes that challenge this reading. In childhood, Heathcliff lies beside Catherine as she pretends to sleep, and he swears that he will always love her. Later, Heathcliff lies over a dead Catherine and begs her not to leave him, to ‘haunt’ him even in death (this does come from the book). These instances of tenderness might imply that the real tragedy of their relationship is that, beyond pleasure-driven and destructive exchanges, there was an unselfish love that was never fully realized. (Virginia Frau)
The movie has an immersive quality; however, viewers must accept one fact before they watch: Whatever their souls are made of, Brontë’s novel and Fennell’s film adaptation are not the same. (Amelie Galbraith)
I’m looking forward to Fennell’s next effort, and if you’re wondering if I watched it all the way through, I did. But it was a major slog. (Don Morton)
The movie left me with a heavy heart and intense sadness. It broke my heart that their love story was doomed from the start.If you’re in the mood for a devastating love story with hints of disturbing gothic literature, this is still worth a watch or two. Just know it has some weird scenes littered throughout. (Yosselyn Garcia Rodas)
I have so many conflicting feelings about “Wuthering Heights” that it’s hard to know whether I even liked it or not. Visually dazzling, emotionally inert. Maximalist production, minimalist writing. Prurient and chaste. Decadent, but hollow. Messy and mannered. I know I was entertained, but I’m not sure it’s actually a good movie or says anything about romance, obsessive love, or the human condition.The film is like a deceptively shallow pool. You’ll break your neck trying to dive in because the water looks refreshing and sure seems deep from far away. But maybe you’ll die with a smile. (Jared Rasic)
The time has come to revisit the evidence and set the record straight, for Charlotte Brontë and Elizabeth Gaskell, in tribute to the spirit of those truth-tellers who ought to be heard long after their detractors have worked to silence them.
%20(1).v1.jpg)
A collaboration inspired by romance and obsession.A love you can tasteHaunt Me limited edition bowlOakberry açaí: Granola; Choc Hazelnut
Spread; Goji Berries; Cacao Nibs; BlueberriesThis is what happens when you turn obsession into flavour 🖤 Heathcliff’s bowl is dark, intense, and impossible to forget.Kiss Me limited edition bowlOakberry açaí; Chia Pudding; Granola; Honey; Double Strawberries. Cathy's bowl is soft, indulgent, and impossible to forget
And now, the podcast:
KIIS Presents iHeartLIVE with Margot Robbie & Jacob Elordi for “Wuthering Heights”
February 13, 2026 • 21 mins
A first of its kind, exclusive, intimate fan event hosted by Smallzy celebrating the Aussie exports turned Hollywood superstars & their highly anticipated new movie.
Wuthering Heights wasn’t raunchy enough. There, I said it.After months of marketing that all but promised a cinematic climax on the Yorkshire moors, the new Wuthering Heights starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi left me doing something I did not expect: Waiting for it to get hotter. (...)If you are going to abandon strict period accuracy, fine. But commit to a world.Perhaps my bigger frustration is this: the film abandons some of the book’s core themes that were genuinely ahead of their time, particularly around race and rigid social hierarchy, yet it does not commit hard enough to the raunchy reimagining to justify the shift. If you are going to strip away Brontë’s grit, at least sex it up.Instead, it sits in an awkward middle ground. Not faithful enough to be literary. Not wild enough to be scandalous.In 2026, if you promise me torrid obsession on the moors, I expect torrid obsession.And frankly, I wanted more. (Georgia Clelland)
On paper, “Wuthering Heights” should be a formidable awards-season contender. Its early February release and divisive storytelling may prove a bridge too far for some audiences.The film’s technical achievements — from lavish production design and daring costuming to Sandgren’s sweeping VistaVision cinematography and a score by Anthony Willis alongside Charli XCX — could find themselves in contention a year from now.“Wuthering Heights” is a spectacle of original auteur filmmaking that demands to be seen in the best format possible. Cinephiles entering the theater with an open mind, ready to celebrate creative risktaking and bold iconography, should experience “Wuthering Heights” unbridled on the big screen rather than confined to a restrained home viewing. (Matt Ward)
Despite criticism, the film succeeds in capturing one of the novel’s essential themes, what happens when social class interferes with love and passion, allowing revenge and resentment to fester.Ultimately, the film presents a modern interpretation of Brontë’s Victorian tragedy, one that resonates with contemporary audiences drawn to stories of dark romance and emotional vulnerability.While it may not replicate the novel’s full depth, it offers a 21st-century lens that highlights how themes of class, obsession, and revenge remain deeply relevant today. (Gaby Collazo)
The film abandons literary fidelity to become something entirely new. The quotation marks do their job – this isn’t Brontë’s story – and Fennell’s central point lands with full force, women remain trapped by the structures men built.“Wuthering Heights” is messy, gorgeous, infuriating and unforgettable. Though it fails as an adaptation to honor the original story’s vision, the film traps viewers in its surprising beauty and makes the cost of desire impossible to ignore. (Alexis Coffee)
Overall, the movie is more of a lust story than a love story. The film received so much hype and popularity before its release because it features two attractive actors in the lead roles, reflecting marketing that prioritizes star power and physical appeal over narrative depth. Today’s audience is enticed and captured by films that feature attractive and famous actors, whether or not the movie itself is good. Wuthering Heights is proof that beautiful people brooding in dramatic lighting still need something to do.Apparently, love may be eternal, but plot development is optional. (Lucia Rose and Niya Desai)
I do applaud the ability of “Wuthering Heights” to take us beyond the bounds of character Nelly Dean’s narration and place the viewer in the estate itself. And we wardrobe admirers were able to get a good look at Jacqueline Durran’s handiwork, the saving grace of the entire production.I imagine that when Brontë conceptualized her masterpiece, Fennell’s interpretation was not at all what she had in mind. However, I encourage you to forget that the movie is an adaptation and give in to the fantastical world of beauty dressed by Durran and brought to life by Robbie and Elordi. There is something for everyone to admire. (Grace Schuringa)
The cinematography of the film is unquestionably stunning. The untamed, lonely and emotionally-charged nature of the surroundings is further supported by the scenery, which is both brutal and lovely in equal measure. Even when the adaptation deviates from the original novel, it does so with assurance and consistency, which serves to explain the film’s deviations. The story’s devastating attraction is reflected in the beauty, which is thematic rather than decorative.In finality, “‘Wuthering Heights’” is an adaptation that encourages discussion with the book rather than attempting to replace it. It offers an interpretation influenced by contemporary cinema, current discussions and a willingness to take chances, existing alongside Brontë’s text rather than in support of it. Although early suspicion is reasonable, if not justified, the movie demonstrates that change does not always equate to treachery or betrayal to the original text.“Wuthering Heights” 2026 is a daring, flawed and startling version that recognizes the original’s strength while daring to change it, producing something surprisingly captivating in the process. (Adisa Balic)
Overall, “Wuthering Heights” is an entertaining watch that maintains its entertainment value. This movie has remained divisive among audiences, but if you’re someone who enjoys melodrama and period romances, this movie could be for you. (Sage Mullins)
The result is a directionless experience that leads only toward confusion and irritation for its viewers, with the exception of those who are satisfied with well-composed images of beautiful people getting touchy amid beautiful backdrops. Stripped of most of its social context, these glamorous scenes of yearning and suffering for forbidden love are little more than moving pictures.There is aural beauty in this film. The original soundtrack album provided by Charli XCX is truly atmospheric, and conveys most of what little vision and intention the film possesses. It is the most original aspect of the film, but it also can’t make up for the overwhelming lack of substance or direction that permeates the rest of “Wuthering Heights.”The visuals fall into the same sort of purgatory. The costumes are aesthetically appealing, and it is no detriment per se that they obviously stray away from period-accurate fashion. Yet despite their intentionally evocative bodice-ripper romance novel aesthetic, every one of Earnshaw’s decadent dresses may as well be generated by artificial intelligence in its attempt to simulate intention that just isn’t there.The film’s leaning into physical passion is not the source of its lackluster storytelling either. It could have been ripe with meaning, as explicit imagery avails itself to a large array of critical commentary that could bear fruit. (Julie Huang)
A remarkable departure from past film versions was the exaggerated production design by Suzie Davies, done to contrast Cathy's lavish playground in Thrushcross Grove to her miserable home turf in Wuthering Heights. The Linton house was replete with over-the-top interiors and props, from the bedroom walls rendered in the color of Cathy's face, the enormous replica of the mansion with dolls inside made by hand with actual human hair, to those glazed shrimps and giant fruits garnishing the food on the ostentatious dining table.A markedly aggressive feature of the 2026 film was the overtly sexual Cathy-Heathcliff relationship. Previously, they were portrayed to be just limited to longing looks and repressed desire. Now, in the first hour, Heathcliff would chance upon Cathy's moments of intimate awakening, peeking at cavorting servants, and exploring herself behind the rocks. In the second hour, upon their reunion, Heathcliff and Cathy actually broke all boundaries and launched into a montage-ful of illicit sexual encounters both in- and outdoors. (Fred Hawson)
When you watch Wuthering Heights, are you going to get a movie that makes you feel good about love? About the realities of the class war? About Emerald Fennell as someone you want to have a beer with? No, probably. But you will leave with a new appreciation for how gnarly and revolting Wuthering Heights is as a text — and for the price of a dozen eggs. (Caroline Colvin)
Essentially, the film lacks detail and purpose. A thrilling, gothic story is canned in favor of a cowering, sexually inept, “modern” retelling. Fennell could have made a freaky “Wuthering Heights” if she so pleased, and also have been semi-true to the novel at the same time. Or, she could have made an entirely different movie, which she clearly intended to do anyways.Instead, the movie relies on shock value and odd euphemisms to deliver the macabre “twist” on the source material. It is crude, but passionless. They could maybe get away with that if it wasn’t being marketed as “the greatest love story of all time.”While watching, my main thought was: how is this adaptation so much, yet too little at the same time? How is this film aiming for ultra freaked-out and still landing upon clunky and juvenile? Why did this cost $80 million dollars to make?I’ll level with you — I was thinking the above thoughts while silently crying in my seat. So, it accomplished something.It’s not a true adaptation, and it’s not even a good half-adaptation. This may be a film I only recommend to select groups of people: the hate viewers, the Elordi and Robbie fans and the overly emotional. (Ava Brescia)
It leans much more synth than “Wuthering Heights,” but it has the same vibes of romantic yearning if that’s what you’re looking for. It’s also a lot more positive if you’re looking for a pick-me-up after listening to “Wuthering Heights.”Now that you have my opinions and my recommendations, you can gather that I am giving “Wuthering Heights” an unsuprising positive rating. (Meredith Young)
The “Wuthering Heights” soundtrack album is a perfect example of what it means for the standards of creation to be sky high, as they currently are for Charli xcx. It certainly justifies this expectation — just listen to “House featuring John Cale,” — but it also represents the pitfalls of catering to a wide variety of demands, with unique sounds suffering from an ensemble average of tastes that push them into sameness. (Alessandro M. M. Drake)
Charli XCX has done it again. Though “Wuthering Heights” is a complete diversion from 2024’s “Brat,” its full string arrangements, miserably romantic imagery and cinematic production makes the album not just a collection of songs, but an immersive experience that will make you want to run dramatically through the English moors. (Julia Vetsch)
Overall, I think the album is interesting for those who already have a liking for Charli xcx’s particular sound. The album is a blend of romantic, synth tones, dark and unsettling instrumentations, and Charli xcx’s iconic auto-tuned, filtered vocal sound. “Wuthering Heights” is definitely less upbeat pop than “Brat”, but it is still uniquely representative of Charli xcx’s sound as an artist. (Ella Mitchell)
“Wuthering Heights” is a satisfying listen as well as a canny solution to the problem of how to follow up a breakthrough record. (Mark Richardson)
In partnership with "WUTHERING HEIGHTS": Eucalyptus breathes cold across the moors, cassis and musk linger like mist, amber and sandalwood burn low—memory comes undone.The Come Undone Kit features Burn No. 3, Oil No. 0, and an exclusive poster + behind-the-scenes booklet—a collectible for film and fragrance lovers alike.On the Scent: Eucalyptus breathes cold across the moors, cassis and musk linger like mist, amber and sandalwood burn low—memory comes undone.Includes:Burn No. 3Melted into warmth, made to be poured. The flame between them never dies. A slow-burning ritual of skin and longing.Oil No. 0A quiet act of intimacy, made for what's felt more than said. Glides like memory; lingers like want.Exclusive Poster & BookletThe exclusive behind-the-scenes booklet traces the making of "Wuthering Heights" through the lens of desire, tension, and design. Where atmosphere becomes touch, and every frame pulls us closer to coming undone.
Wuthering HeightsFebruary 15, 2026For this week's main podcast review, Katie Johnson, Josh Parham, Cody Dericks, Giovanni Lago, and Daniel Howat join me to discuss the latest film from Emerald Fennell, "Wuthering Heights," starring Margot Robbie, Jacob Elordi, Hong Chau, Shazad Latif, Alison Oliver, Martin Clunes, and Ewan Mitchell. Adapted from Emily Brontë's 1847 novel, the film is a highly subjective reinterpretation by Fennell and has garnered a wide range of opinions and generated a ton of discourse surrounding the casting and book changes/omissions. What did we think of it? Please tune in as we discuss Fennell's direction, writing, the costumes, production design, cinematography, score, songs by Charli xcx, the performances and chemistry from Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi, its awards season chances, and more in our SPOILER-FILLED review. Thank you for listening. Come undone with us and enjoy (or let it drive you mad).
Warner Bros.’ “Wuthering Heights” remained at No. 1 at the U.K. and Ireland box office in its second weekend, taking £3.8 million ($5.3 million) and pushing its cumulative total to £16.2 million ($22.1 million), according to Comscore. (Naman Ramachandran)
After opening in second place over Valentine’s Day last weekend, Emerald Fennell‘s Wuthering Heights suffered a minuscule 16 percent drop to rise to the top of the Czech box office charts in its second weekend of release, according to data from the Czech Film Distributors Union. The Gothic romance starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi as ill-fated lovers Cathy and Heathcliff earned CZK 4.61 million to bring its two-week total to just north of CZK 13 million.
As a Yorkshire lass, Wuthering Heights holds a visceral place in my heart. I chose to view this new 2026 film adaptation not as the book I love, however, but as a standalone vision by director Emerald Fennell. Absolute purists will not enjoy this disconnected fantasy; it is certainly not Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights. But if you suspend expectations, it is an indulgent treat.The verdict? Emerald Fennell’s ‘make believe’ lacks the scent of windswept heather but has its own strange, man-made shine. Shallow, yes; glossy, certainly. Is it worth a watch? Yes – as long as you don’t expect the earthy style, substance, or plot of the book.
Going in, I expected something far more explicit. Instead, the film handled intimacy with surprising restraint. It was tasteful. Charged, yes, but never exploitative. There are a few moments that feel more distracting than seductive. But even that doesn’t tip into the film’s success. It just briefly pulls you out of the mood. At most, they briefly disrupt the atmosphere before it tightens its grip again.Wuthering Heights isn’t a comforting watch. It’s gothic in the truest senses: obsessive and morally-murky. It doesn’t glamorize love. It interrogates it. Is this what soulmates look like? Or is it what happens when two people mistake trauma for destiny? The film never gives you a clean answer. It just leaves you with the wind, the red, the silence and that love echoing in your head. Pleasure or death in Wuthering Heights are almost indistinguishable. (Savannah Stickrod-Worthen)
I loved that I thought back to the work of the poetic Emily with a new interpretation. And that my daughter could approach an old story with a contemporary lens. And I love that women made this. And they knew they would be criticised and hung high in the town square. They’re too old. Too blonde. Too much like Barbie. Too different from the book…but they did it anyway. Unapologetic.It made me realise why I have always found that bloody story so unsettling. Because I know what it is to be Cathy. That the darkness and shadow is not separate to me. It is me. I’m Cathy. I’ve come home.(Only thing I would have added at the end was Kate Bush.) (Mandy Nolan)
Without revealing salient plot points, Emerald Fennell (“Saltburn,” “Promising Young Woman”) focuses on tumultuous, obsessive lust – choosing overtly erotic style-over-substance – graphically chronicled in VistaVision by cinematographer Linus Sandgren and extravagantly enhanced by production designer Suzie Davies, set decorator Charlotte Diricks, costumer Jacqueline Durran and composer Charli xcx. (Susan Granger)
While Fennell may not have cared so much about the book-to-movie adaptation of it all, she nevertheless succeeded in making an entertaining and visually pleasing movie. (Liliana Hummel)
Still, much of Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is a visual treat for the armchair traveler. You get to viscerally wander those wild, craggy Yorkshire moors (or wherever the film was shot). Cue the cheesy but irresistible image of Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) riding off on a rearing steed against a flaming sunset after hearing of Cathy’s engagement to wealthy neighbor Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif). Fennell’s version of Thrushcross Grange, Linton’s estate, as a scarlet-and-gold candy box—with Cathy’s bedroom walls patterned after her skin—is preposterous but fun to gape at. As is Cathy’s elaborate, far-too-modern wardrobe, which features flounces, tinsel, and décolletage—call it Barbie Victorian. Gape is the operative word; this movie dumbs you down. [...]There’s been much verbiage about Fennell’s in-quotes version of “Wuthering Heights” and whether it violates the spirit of the original, blah blah. There’s no reason a film adaptation can’t create a parallel version of its primary source. I’ve always thought the film of The English Patient was perhaps better than the novel, thanks to Ralph Fiennes and Kristin Scott Thomas—particularly the way the film clarified certain scenes that were illegible in the novel. Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is notable for its ambition, production values, and the sheer chutzpah of attempting to bring such a cherished masterwork of English literature to the screen. But none of that has resulted in a good film. (Erica Abeel)
Taking into account these clashing elements and reviews, the film has shown itself to be complex, visually extravagant and emotionally charged, but often lacking in character depth and Brontë’s overall message regarding class, identity and the destructive nature of obsessive love. (Polina Akulova)
If you want to look at something pretty, see Elordi be mildly freaky and lots of aesthetic color choices, go see the movie. If you want to see something romantic, tragic, and with the substance of the novel — particularly a layered tragedy based on the abuses society deals to its most marginalized, and how love can still grow despite this — skip it. (Nazjai Dickson)
When looking at “Wuthering Heights” both individually and in the context of the career Charli xcx has enjoyed, it is impossible not to love it. Though not as strong as some of her previous works, it is a spectacular addition to her catalog that is deserving of immense praise. It is a reminder that, despite whatever happens, Charli will do what she wants to do to fulfill her artistic mission and create something extraordinary along the way. (Layne Heath)
It’s a bright, crisp, perfect winter’s day as I cross the moors towards Haworth, and the north feels anything but grim as I take in the sweeping views before me.This is Brontë country, a landscape immortalised by the literary sisters in the pages of their world-famous novels.Some footpath signs to sites made famous through their association with the Brontë's books are written in Japanese and English, an indication of how popular this corner of Yorkshire is for enthusiasts worldwide.For many who visit, this isn’t just a day out, it’s a pilgrimage - a chance to step into the world that shaped some of the greatest novels in English literature.The charm of Haworth and the surrounding area is being appreciated by an even wider audience, thanks to social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram. (Felicity Macnamara)
Series: Colouring After DarkImprint: Wren & RookISBN: 9781526368348February 12, 2026Enter the windswept world of Wuthering Heights in this richly detailed colouring book, inspired by one of literature’s most haunting love stories and the new feature film adaptation starring Margot Robbie and Jacob Elordi.Perfect for snuggling up in cosy candlelight after dark, this beautifully illustrated colouring book features 20 atmospheric scenes to colour – from wild Yorkshire landscapes and grand manor houses to candlelit rooms, roaring fires and secret, stolen glances. Each page captures the passion, drama and intensity that define Emily Brontë’s timeless tale.Blending cosy comfort with dark academia aesthetics, this gothic romance colouring book is perfect for quiet evenings, mindfulness relaxation and literary escapism. Featuring selected quotes, excerpts and character profiles, it makes the perfect gift for classic literature lovers and anyone enchanted by brooding moors and star-crossed love.
Deadline hears that The White Lotus and Sex Education star Aimee Lou Wood is attached to star in a new TV adaptation of Charlotte Brontë’s classic novel Jane Eyre.Emmy nominee Wood will play the indomitable heroine in the buzzy adaptation, which we understand is being produced by UK powerhouse Working Title and is penned by Miriam Battye, a WGA Award winner for her work on Succession.We hear there are advanced discussions with a UK broadcaster to join the project. (Andreas Wiseman)
Plenty of other news outlets repeat the news: Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Harper's Bazaar...
Nestled among the wide-open moors of West Yorkshire sits Haworth, the English village where Emily Brontë wrote “Wuthering Heights,” the gothic romance that inspired Hollywood’s latest steamy adaptation.The cobblestone streets and rugged hills here still conjure the hardscrabble life and wild forces of nature that underpin the novel.As it did in 1847, when the book was published, the region offers a window into the stark contrasts and economic struggles that challenge Britain. Now, as then, social and demographic change, rising food prices and widening wealth inequality are driving populist political movements, calls for reform and spasms of unrest.Haworth is eight miles from Bradford, a town that Emily’s father, Patrick, visited often in his role as an Anglican priest. In the mid-19th century, Bradford was a wealthy, fast-growing center of textile manufacturing, home to powerful parliamentary lawmakers and a destination for tourists and traders.The city’s decline is typical of the hollowing-out of many postindustrial towns and cities in northern England, fueling the poverty and frustration that are shaking up British politics. [...]One afternoon in November, tourists gathered to listen to a banjo player outside the Villette Coffee House in Haworth. Couples walked their dogs. Parents struggled to push their strollers along the deeply rutted cobblestones.Bradford’s woes can seem far from here.Many people believe, incorrectly, that the Brontë siblings grew up in a remote, backward place.As Juliet Barker writes in “The Brontës,” Haworth was actually “a busy, industrial township” with 13 small textile mills in the area when Patrick Brontë became curate in 1820. The village had its own surgeon, a wine merchant, a watchmaker and three cabinetmakers. It was overcrowded, however, and had primitive sanitation. An 1850 report found that more than 2 in 5 children died before their sixth birthday and average life expectancy was under 26 years.While Bradford now struggles economically, Haworth became a destination for literature fans around the world, exemplifying the value of Britain’s heritage to its tourism industry, which employs over a million people and contributes more than $100 billion a year to the economy.A local couple spent one Saturday stringing bunting from the wooden beams of Haworth’s recently refurbished old schoolhouse building, where Charlotte Brontë, Emily’s older sister and the author of “Jane Eyre,” had her wedding reception in 1854. Down the street, tourists quietly filed through the Brontë home that is now a museum. Outside, the moors stretch as far as the eye can see, rolling hills of dark green and brown divided by bare stone walls. (Michael D. Shear)
Wuthering Heights fans have gone wild after Cliff Richard's 90s musical based on the novel, which he co-wrote and starred in as Heathcliff, has gone viral.Aussie Jacob Elordi may be smouldering on screen in Emerald Fennell's new big screen adaption, but first came Sir Cliff, now 85, with his own strangely wig and questionable Yorkshire accent.Gone is the crooner's squeaky clean persona to play the rogue in the 1996 show which was a huge hit with fans but loathed by critics, who hit out at Cliff's casting. [...]Taking to TikTok fans joked: 'This is what Emily Brontë would have wanted!': 'Cliff heard a Yorkshire accent, once, in a dream': 'I'm screaming!!': 'Sorry but this is what all movie to musical adaptations sound like to me': 'Why didn't they call it Heathcliffe Richards?': 'I am only surprised that Cilla Black wasn't cast as Cathy'. (Geraint Llewellyn)
That’s a real shame, considering how interesting Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” is if you can divorce yourself from the film’s source material, as its writer-director does with palpable glee. Her take is a maelstrom of splendid beauty and doomed love, colliding at a feverish pace that makes the fidelity to Brontë’s book moot. This is Fennell’s vision, her creation. Its bones are the same, but its cells are different. Why, then, is Fennell’s adaptation of a classic met with such ruthless scrutiny, when another recent Jacob Elordi-starring remix on an equally beloved, oft-remade tale — Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein” — was lauded by both critics, viewers and awards bodies alike?Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” pivots the novel toward fantastical anachronism and open-hearted femininity, while del Toro’s “Frankenstein” is a dour, dark spin that blunts the sentimentality of Mary Shelley’s book for an adaptation that plays more like a superhero origin story. Both filmmakers chose to make Elordi their 6 ‘6 muse, using his imposing stature to their gain — strong and rugged as Fennell’s Heathcliff, while towering and intimidating as del Toro’s Creature — and the cinematic story arcs for both characters regularly deviate from their respective novels. Despite these and other glaring similarities between these films released just four months apart, only one movie was met with virulent animosity from the jump, and somehow, it wasn’t the worst movie of the two. This isn’t just the latest layer in the longtime double standard for films made by women compared to those made by men; the reaction also indicates a frightening lack of curiosity among stubborn viewers unwilling to consider a reality beyond a prevailing narrative. [...]That may be the most disturbing aspect of all. Whether people enjoy Fennell’s work is a matter of personal taste. But refusing to keep an open mind and stay curious about a film simply because of a filmmaker’s reputation for (relatively tame!) smuttiness is detrimental to the cinema that Fennell’s critics purport to uphold. “Wuthering Heights” may not be to many people’s taste, but what Fennell has done is irrefutably interesting. She’s made something different from your typical adaptation, a movie that brings a fresh perspective to a very old and frequently retold tale. How very frustrating that so many people have closed off their minds and hearts to the film before they’ve even seen it, or before the credits rolled. Such baseless reticence only makes us more defiant and less inquisitive. Social media might be the modern watercooler — the dominating force of cultural conversation — but taking its narratives as gospel without considering art for ourselves only reinforces our worst instincts and upholds the systems that a surprising, offbeat and altogether different film like “Wuthering Heights” rallies against. (Coleman Spilde)
Wuthering Heights may be romantic for some, but in today’s culture, no one ought to regard the relationship between Cathy and Heathcliff as something to aim for; it’s at best absent, and at worst innately toxic. (Annie Dabb)
It’s Alison Olivier’s character, Isabella, in particular, whose journey embodies the symbolism behind the ribbons. At her residence, Thushcross Grange, the wealthy, sheltered young woman spends her days in a room dedicated to sashes and bows, making creations like dolls crafted from human hair. While her proclivities may make her appear naive, her girlishness ultimately comes to represent her own self-discovery and how she revels in control. [...]In the second part of Isabella’s arc, her hair is now worn loose, but bows and rosettes still line her gowns. Oliver plays the character like she’s constantly frothing at the mouth, eager for something more, but she’s still the woman with the ribbon room in these fetishistic scenes; she’s just now allowed herself to come undone. (Sadie Bell)
If one can separate Fennell’s adaptation from its source material, it’s altogether captivating. However, the film’s title, enclosed in quotation marks, emphasizes an important point: It is only “Wuthering Heights” in essence. Fennell’s version raises a consequential question — if you replace a story’s substance, is it still the same story? How much can creative liberty justify before an adaptation becomes a rip-off? (Abbey Conley)
Actually, the whole film is probably best enjoyed as a kind of offshoot of Barbie. Call it “Wuthering Heights Barbie,” featuring the famous doll boxed up in a tightly corseted nineteenth-century gown with BDSM accessories like whips and hangman’s nooses and horse’s bridles. It’s also sold with an elaborate new Barbie’s Dreamhouse, the glamorously dreary Gothic version, with a dark-haired Ken in heavy sideburns grinning fondly at Barbie from the doorway. And Fennell has thought of practically all the sex positions those blank-eyed dolls can be put into, with their arms that go up and down, and bendy joints, and heads that turn all the way around! (Eileen Jones)
“Wuthering Heights” is the rare studio film where the below-the-line work doesn’t support the vision — it is the vision. Having been introduced to Emerald Fennell’s filmmaking through that Promising Young Woman panel, watching the team she has built and the scale at which they now operate, this is exactly the trajectory you hoped for. The moors look magnificent, the obsession feels real, and the craft is impeccable. This is a film made by people who care deeply about every frame — and it shows. (Byron Burton)
What fascinates is not whether this adaptation is faithful, but why it feels so precisely calibrated to now. We live in a culture that celebrates emotional extremity, provided it remains interpretable and contained. We want intensity, but we want distance from its consequences. We want the experience of witnessing emotional chaos without surrendering to its destabilising force.This film reflects that instinct. It offers devastation as an encounter rather than a transformation. Something to observe, not something that alters you. In doing so, it adapts not just Wuthering Heights, but our diminished tolerance for emotional risk. The original story confronted readers with emotional violence that refused resolution or distance. This version allows you to remain safely outside it.I left impressed by its craft, but more struck by what its restraint represented. The film doesn't weaken the story so much as reveal the conditions under which stories now exist. They must be legible. They must be shareable. They must survive translation into image.The moors remain wild. What has changed is our willingness to be undone by them. (Anoushka Madan)
Fennell’s masterpiece (so far) is her 2020 thriller “Promising Young Woman” starring Carey Mulligan. That film earned Fennell a well-deserved Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Her ultra-weird 2023 offering “Saltburn” (also starring Elordi) was a letdown. “Wuthering Heights” falls somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, the best compliment I can pay “Wuthering Heights” is to say it’s not as bad as you’ve heard. But I realize that is faint praise, at best. (Andy Ray)
I feel this film is adequately okay. It is not a conventional period drama, but it’s also not a smoothly organized one (or a carefully designed one) either. (Casey Allen)
The film’s abrupt ending inverts our expectations, circling back to Cathy and Heathcliff in their youth. They are bonded from the very beginning until the very end. Cathy is headstrong in defending Heathcliff against her father, even when it scares her. Heathcliff is guarded and protects Cathy, even when it costs him. We see just how much each of their inner children resurface in their adult relationship: Deep down, they are emotionally sensitive, although they fight to appear otherwise, both to outsiders and each other.In my viewing experience, I felt compelled to consider the notion of forgiveness. At one point, Cathy says to Heathcliff, “You’re too late,” and I was left asking: When is it too late, and where do forgiveness and regret intersect? I find myself still pondering these questions as I write this, a few days after my viewing. I’m unsure whether I appreciate or detest these unanswered questions, but perhaps that’s what Fennell’s “‘Wuthering Heights’” is all about — an invitation to face those haunting thoughts, whether we like them or not. (Olivia Barkwill)
For those avid Brontë fans willing to loosen their grip on strict fidelity, the film offers something compelling - a strikingly immersive and carefully curated vision that asserts its own identity. [...]It's dramatic, gruesome, and confrontational - Fennell immediately signals that this will not be a museum piece adaptation. [...]These changes transform ambiguous cruelty into explicit manipulations, heightening emotional stakes and making the story more immediate and cinematic for modern viewers. Fennell clearly favors intense layered drama. (Nawal Ahmad)
At the time of its 1847 publication, Brontë’s novel was considered brutal and coarse, devoting unconventional time to themes of female liberation and the racial hierarchy of late Georgian England. In her film adaptation, Fennell has stripped the story of most of this core meaning. Instead, she injects “Wuthering Heights” with excessive and shiny contemporary touches as though they automatically make the film subversive and thought-provoking for modern audiences. (Isabella Konecky)
Fennell set out to recreate how the novel felt at 14: intoxicating, dangerous, erotic. And at moments, she succeeds. It comes across very differently from Brontë's original novel, which endures by being about two forces so volatile that they destroy everything around them, including themselves, not because of how sexy or shocking the story is, as Fennel depicts in this film adaptation. (Nora Siddique)
Conversely, Fennell’s adaptation is messy and watered down, all tied up in a pretty little bow that fails to mask its disingenuity.Some may argue that the quotation marks around the film’s title suggest that it is merely an interpretation. However, Fennell’s film borrows too much from the source material to be thought of as anything other than an adaptation. As much as I tried to see this film as its own entity separate from the novel, at the end of the day it cannot be totally removed from the context of the original work. As hard as Fennell tried to depict Wuthering Heights in her own way, she missed the mark entirely, making a mockery of Brontë’s magnum opus. (Sarah Toman)
A gorgeous set design is not enough to make up for a flawed production that badly misinterprets the story Emily Bronte set forth to tell in the 19th century. There are a bare handful of good moments, but it isn't nearly enough to save the film from itself. Should be remembered as a cautionary tale as to how adapting a book can go wrong even with the best of intentions. (Becky O'Brien)
A filmmaker with genuine concern for her characters’ minds, hearts, and bodies alike could have perhaps employed this approach to mine the material for a new and unique interpretation. Fennell, instead, has not created a film but a walking, talking, sexual Pinterest board—maybe a fine Bridgerton fanfic, but no excuse to desecrate a classic. (Avantika Jagdhari)
Esta interpretación entiende que el verdadero terror de amar no radica en perder al otro, sino en descubrirse irreversiblemente transformado por ese vínculo.Y es precisamente en esa devastación emocional donde radica su fuerza, en recordarnos que las historias de amor más memorables no son las que consuelan, sino las que dejan una marca imborrable. (Mónica Castellón) (Translation)
